Wednesday, March 6, 2013

At the present moment, the revolutionary movement of the proletariat is confronted with historic challenges and obstacles which boldly stand in the way of the revolutionary reconstitution of society at large in the interests of working and oppressed people. The reality at hand is the ongoing onslaught that the capitalists are forcing down the throats of working people by means of their ruthless austerity regimes and imperialist plunders. By now, no one can hide the fact that even those in the imperialist First World are suffering from the current crisis of capitalism. While the ruling classes of the West are crucifying Libyans in the name of freedom and democracy, and while the Syrian people, bloodied and exhausted, are struggling to resist imperialist invasion and a brutal civil war engineered and perpetuated by the West, working people of America are being stimulated, and beginning to wake up to the sights around them and realize the gravity of the situation. Witnessing the fury of cuts, austerity, and encroachments on democratic rights at home, and at the same time looking on at the terroristic wars being waged by their government throughout the world, American working people are showing signs of an increasingly awakened class consciousness in response to the crisis of the global capitalist-imperialist system. The achievement of a socialist consciousness, however, is still a complex and dynamic work in progress, and a protracted one at that.

As has been admitted, considerable challenges and obstacles litter the road to such a culmination. A capitalist crisis brings not only a responsive class consciousness or political resurgence of proletarian revolution, but also heightened offensives launched with the aim of sustaining the capitalist system regardless of the suffering by the masses of people entailed. The ruling class, split or divided, is fundamentally united by its “better dead than red” mentality, and, driven by this, is determined to fight to the death before surrendering state power to any revolutionary forces.

At such a time, and considering such realities, the fundamental question of the revolutionary Marxist agenda is the means by which the American proletariat can be organized, educated, and agitated to the point of realizing and being capable of successfully enacting the necessity of overthrowing capitalism. This is not only a question of strategy and means that has been discussed many a time around the tables of communists or in the essays and articles of radicals, but also a crucial problem concerning the very livelihood of the revolutionary movement and those involved. It must be borne in mind that, regardless of what phrasemongering may be uttered by various comrades here and there, we are living in a time of definite systemic crisis and radical rupture of capitalism, and our actions and orientation must be suited accordingly to this state of conditions. It is simply unpardonable to ignore or be “innocent” of seeing the conditions that we are facing, the statistics and facts of which can be found presented anywhere, even in the pages of the bourgeois press.

Unfortunately, however, there are comrades who, although they may recognize the realities of capitalism at hand, shut their eyes to the realities of socialism and revolution which are inseparable from the problems of capitalism and their solution. This tendency is distinguished by its proposal of petty reformist and revisionist distortions in place of genuinely radical theory and practice, and one of the gravest aspects of this tendency is its very position within the working class movement.

There is no use in hiding the fact that the greatest representatives of the reformist and revisionist tendency within the ranks of the proletarian movement are those who constitute the present leadership of the Communist Party USA, i.e., Sam Webb and co. This group, this organized tendency, is responsible for proudly and unabashedly asserting and suggesting numerous theses concerning the path and means by which to deal with the current situation of capitalism which are entirely irreconcilable with Marxism, proletarian revolution, and even the realities of capitalism. As Comrade Mark Anderson has pointed out in his article The Old Bug of Right Opportunism Returns, these include, but are not limited to the following:

“The capitalist system is not moribund, as Lenin said, but is relatively strong. It is not in general crisis. Therefore, the U.S. party’s strategy should be solely to win attainable reforms within the system rather than advocate capitalism’s revolutionary replacement with socialism.”

“Anti-monopoly strategy, let alone anti-capitalist propaganda, is too advanced for this stage of struggle, and the main focus should instead be on rebuffing the most extreme right and the Republican Party.”

“Historically, socialism has shown itself to be unable to solve economic and social problems. Central planning is a failure; a market-oriented economy is the way to go. It’s not even clear anymore what socialism is.”

“The class struggle has ceased to be the central pivot around which all questions revolve.”

“Racism and national oppression are gradually receding. It is no longer necessary to aggressively push for affirmative action.”

“Issues of discrimination, anti-Semitism, and the struggle for the full equality of African Americans, Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, Native Americans, Asian-Pacific and Arab Americans, LGBT, women, and youth no longer requires special attention. Party Commissions and special demands on these questions are unnecessary.”

“The term “U.S. imperialism” is too simplistic. The U.S. government, especially under President Obama, can play a positive and humanitarian role in world politics. For this reason it is permissible for the U.S. military and NATO forces to occupy other nations like Iraq and Afghanistan, impose “democratic” reforms, and secure neoliberal economic advantages. Peace and solidarity work is therefore not as important as it once was.”

“Electoral politics should be limited to work within the Democratic Party. Any attempt to go outside the two-party system is sectarian and futile. Running candidates on the Communist Party ticket is especially narrow and self-defeating.”

“The CPUSA is bogged down by dogmatism, sectarianism and rigidity. Many of the stock slanders of the Party are indeed justified. It may not survive unless it abandons its outdated dogmas, including the dogma that it should play a leading, vanguard role.”

“The Party should emulate social democracy and seek to merge with the broad left. The “Communist plus” should be given a quiet burial, and Marxist-Leninist education and literature (including a printed news paper) are relatively unimportant. Strong party organization is no longer necessary.”

These notions, although perpetrated and implied in nearly every article or speech that the leadership puts forward, have yet to be presented in more of a concentrated and straightforward expression than in Sam Webb’s A Party of Socialism in the 21st Century: What It Looks Like, What It Says, and What It Does. An unabashed rejection and condemnation of Marxism-Leninism, a manifesto for reformism and wholesale revisionism, and, above all, the guiding orientation of the Communist Party USA’s present leadership and thus Party policy, Webb’s essay is an unavoidable and undeniably significant document. The document is even further significant upon realizing its context in present conditions.

At such a time of glaringly evident and deep crisis of the global capitalist system, in the face of the looming environmental disaster facing humanity, and in view of US imperialism’s continued, vicious and violent onslaught against the peoples of the global south – one would think that at such a time, the leadership of the Communist Party USA would shoulder its revolutionary rifle and recognize its historic mission to organize the working class for revolutionary resistance and struggle against the world capitalist-imperialist offensive. Sam Webb, however, has proven that a very different view is at large within the Party’s ranks, and, most unfortunately, among its leading figures. Indeed, few pronouncements have so shocked the American Left as has Sam Webb’s A Party of Socialism in the 21st Century: What It Looks Like, What It Says, and What It Does.

In antagonism to Webb’s theses and proposed orientation, however, there exists a revolutionary alternative which, rather than striving to cope with, accomodate, and appease the more “progressive” spectrums of the capitalist-imperialist ruling class, believes in the pivotal conclusions reached by Marx and Lenin that have made Marxism-Leninism the scientifically deduced theory and practice of the emancipation of the world’s exploited and oppressed people that has accumulated the blood, sweat, tears, triumphs and tribulations, and successes and failures of more than a hundred years of struggle.

This tendency, which very much may be the Bolshevik tendency of today (as opposed to the Menshevik tendency of Webb and co.), resolves that, in view of the existing conditions, we must not abandon but instead hold high the banner of Marxism-Leninism, and, rather than ditch truly revolutionary politics, embrace them. The historic dilemma facing communists at the present juncture of history is one of either letting American capitalism continue its history, or, alternatively, beginning the history of American socialism. As has been said, the fundamental question of the revolutionary Marxist agenda is the means by which the American proletariat can be organized, educated, and agitated to the point of realizing and being capable of successfully enacting the necessity of transforming bourgeois society and thus opening the road for such a socialist America. The way forward is clear: we communists must organize ourselves as the vanguard of working people and the revolution, we must develop a Party capable of educating, organizing, agitating, and leading working people and their allies in the collective struggle for socialism.

Presently, we are playing two ends against a middle in that we, in line with Party policy, are responsible for developing and maintaining a mass base of support by being activists in the struggle against the problems of capitalism, but at the same time we are allying with a “section” of the capitalists in power, the “progressive” Democrats, because they supposedly constitute a buffer against the forces of ultra-reaction, i.e., the far Right, and serve as a popular force in the interests of the “people” and “inclusive democracy”, as Sam Webb would put it. By perpetrating such a policy, however, communists the country over are fulfilling a self-destructive prophecy of dooming the proletarian movement under the guise of “reinvigorating” or “broadening” it. Under the present line, we are responsible for rallying the masses of people around the struggle against capitalism by means of joining and tail-ending forces which objectively bolster and support the capitalist system. The incongruity is glaringly evident. The lack of materialist class analysis is inexcusable.

Rather than miseducating and misleading people in struggle in this manner, however, the Communist Party USA must be tasked with handling its historic mission of organizing the forces of revolution against those of reaction, with shouldering its task of educating, agitating, organizing, and leading working people against the reactionary forces of capitalism, whether or not they label themselves Democrat, or Republican, or Libertarian, etc.

A revolution is on the agenda when people can no longer go on living in the old way. Such a horizon is extremely close in view. We cannot pretend to know what exact day the people will be compelled to take to the streets and overthrow the current order, nor can we pretend to know the exact day on which the integuments of capitalism will burst asunder and revolution will be the only open door for humanity. What communists, what the Communist Party USA, should do, can do, and must do, however, is prepare cadres, educate, organize, and agitate working people, and orient its work towards facing its historic mission of leading the American people in casting capitalism to the dustbin of history, and opening up, on the basis of socialism, prospects for humanity’s sustainable and just development.

What is to be done? Where to begin?

The Communist Party USA, as our Party of working and oppressed people, must be first and foremost revolutionized in its theory and practice.

As Lenin so presciently pointed out: “In its struggle for power the proletariat has no other weapon but organization. Disunited by the rule of anarchic competition in the bourgeois world, ground down by forced labor for capital, constantly thrust back to the “lower depths” of utter destitution, savagery, and degeneration, the proletariat can become an invincible force only through its ideological unification on the principles of Marxism being reinforced by the material unity of organization, which welds millions of toilers into an army of the working class.” Neither the senile rule of the American imperialists nor the senescent rule of international capital will be able to withstand this army. The Communist Party USA must render itself such an organization which has the theoretical foresight, fighting capacity, and determination by which to wield millions of American workers into an army committed to overthrowing capitalism and bringing fruition to the adage that has been inscribed on the Party’s banners for decades: “Peace, democracy, equality, socialism!” To this end, establishing the very organizational and ideological integrity which the Party currently lacks is an imperative matter.

Such is the guiding principle by which to begin to orient the struggle against the retrograde trends in the Party and begin to push forward the struggle for the emancipation of working and oppressed people in the United States of America. It us up to communists around the country to realize these crucial realities of theory and practice, and contribute their lot to working out concrete methods and means of building a Communist Party which is not just interested in interpreting the world, but effectively changing it. Limiting ourselves as we currently are to tail-ending the Democratic Party, the trade unions, “progressive” politics, and so on is systematically sabotaging and impeding the development of what has rang essential since the days of the Communist Manifesto: “They [communists] openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.” Working and oppressed people of all countries, unite!

Signed: Comrades J. Arnoldski, John Mackoviak, Analise Spencer, Jim Byrne, and E.C. Tolentino of the Tucson Club of the CPUSA

Saturday, December 1, 2012

The following is a discussion article for the upcoming Communist Party USA national convention. I am reposting it here from ML Today as an exploration of the development of Right Opportunism in the CPUSA. As Comrade Stalin has said, “Under capitalist conditions
the Right deviation in communism signifies a tendency … of a section of
the Communists to depart from the revolutionary line of Marxism in the
direction of Social-Democracy.” For an important analysis
of the historical roots of Right Opportunism in the CPUSA, see Harry Haywood‘s article, “The Degeneration of the CPUSA in the 1950s.” See also the section on antirevisionism of the Marxist-Leninist Study Guide:The Old Bug of Right Opportunism Returns
by Mark Anderson
Although Marxist-Leninist terminology has fallen out of vogue with
the top leadership of our Party, there’s no avoiding the use of precise,
scientific language if one is to analyze contemporary phenomena from a
Communist point of view. To do so would be like trying to have a
discussion of Newtonian physics without using words like force or
matter.
For several years our Party has been suffering from the corrosive
effects of what Marx, Lenin and other Marxists called opportunism,
specifically right opportunism. This was not name-calling on their part,
but was instead an attempt to define a historically determined
phenomenon that persists to this day.Former CPUSA chairman Gus Hall, in a 1979
article titled “Opportunism: the Destructive Germ,” defined right
opportunism as “an unnecessary and unprincipled accommodation and, in
the end, a capitulation to the enemy. It is a sacrificing of the
longer-term and more basic interests of the working class and the people
behind the guise of getting concessions on some immediate questions.”
He called opportunism a recurrent “virus,” an “old bug,” that the
Party, surrounded as it is by bourgeois pressures, had to constantly be
on guard against.
Generally speaking, right opportunism means sacrificing principle for
short-term gains. It means an excessive readiness to make compromises
with the capitalist class at the expense of the working class, to “get
along” with capitalist order, to “go with the flow” and work for small
changes around the edges rather than for fundamental change. It’s
closely related to the concept of reformism.
The “left” variant of opportunism is characterized by sectarian
phrase-mongering detached from the real world, whose objective effect is
to perpetuate the established order much like its right variant does.
Historically, right opportunism has been the primary danger within
the CPUSA. In its most extreme form, it led to the dissolution of the
Party under the leadership of Earl Browder in the 1940s. It also badly
split the Party in 1991 when a right-opportunist faction tried to
capture the leadership of the Party and transform it into a reformist,
social-democratic association.
The right-opportunist affliction in our Party today is manifested in
several ways, most notably in a de-emphasizing of the class struggle.
For example, instead of helping the working class understand that its
interests are irreconcilably opposed to the monopoly capitalist class,
and organizing to wage struggle on that basis, the right-opportunist
trend advocates all-class unity against political conservatives in a
classless “battle for democracy.”
It places strategic emphasis on supporting more liberal or
“enlightened” elements of the ruling, capitalist class as the lesser of
two evils, particularly in the electoral arena, until such time as the
conservatives or the “ultra-right” are decisively defeated. What would
constitute such a decisive defeat is never spelled out, however. Even
now, with a Democratic president and strong Democratic majority in
Congress, advocates of this approach insist it must be retained.
To justify its position, this trend invokes Georgi Dimitrov’s theory
of the popular front against fascism in the 1930s, and a variant of that
position developed by CPUSA leaders in the early 1980s, when Ronald
Reagan came to power. Yet this trend is quick to point out that we do
not have fascism today, nor does it appear to be imminent.
In practice, this all-class strategy means that the Party refrains
from criticizing its would-be capitalist-class allies, mutes its
criticism of the big monopolies (e.g. refrains from calling for their
nationalization), exaggerates the significance of differences within the
ruling class, and plays down basic Marxist concepts like the class
character of the capitalist state.
One result of this approach is a blunting of working-class
consciousness and socialist consciousness, and a weakening of the
Party’s fighting spirit.
Among other right-opportunist ideas afflicting our Party are these:The capitalist system is not moribund, as Lenin said, but is
relatively strong. It is not in general crisis. Therefore, the U.S.
party’s strategy should be solely to win attainable reforms within the
system rather than advocate capitalism’s revolutionary replacement with
socialism.Anti-monopoly strategy, let alone anti-capitalist propaganda, is
too advanced for this stage of struggle, and the main focus should
instead be on rebuffing the most extreme right and the Republican Party.Historically, socialism has shown itself to be unable to solve
economic and social problems. Central planning is a failure; a
market-oriented economy is the way to go. It’s not even clear anymore
what socialism is.
The class struggle has ceased to be the central pivot around which all questions revolve.Racism and national oppression are gradually receding. It is no longer necessary to aggressively push for affirmative action.Issues of discrimination, anti-Semitism, and the struggle for the
full equality of African Americans, Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans,
Native Americans, Asian-Pacific and Arab Americans, LGBT, women, and
youth no longer requires special attention. Party Commissions and
special demands on these questions are unnecessary.The term “U.S. imperialism” is too simplistic. The U.S.
government, especially under President Obama, can play a positive and
humanitarian role in world politics. For this reason it is permissible
for the U.S. military and NATO forces to occupy other nations like Iraq
and Afghanistan, impose “democratic” reforms, and secure neoliberal
economic advantages. Peace and solidarity work is therefore not as
important as it once was.Electoral politics should be limited to work within the
Democratic Party. Any attempt to go outside the two-party system is
sectarian and futile. Running candidates on the Communist Party ticket
is especially narrow and self-defeating.The CPUSA is bogged down by dogmatism, sectarianism and rigidity.
Many of the stock slanders of the Party are indeed justified. It may
not survive unless it abandons its outdated dogmas, including the dogma
that it should play a leading, vanguard role.The Party should emulate social democracy and seek to merge with
the broad left. The “Communist plus” should be given a quiet burial, and
Marxist-Leninist education and literature (including a printed news
paper) are relatively unimportant. Strong party organization is no
longer necessary.
The basis for the growth and development of this negative,
right-opportunist trend in our Party consists of several elements,
including: (1) the relatively long period of the capitalist system’s
expansion, at least until the most recent crisis, and the resulting
ideological pressures of ruling-class ideology; (2) the continuing
ideological fallout from the demise of the USSR and the Eastern European
socialist countries, (3) the weak class composition of our own Party —
the insufficient number of workers in the leadership and membership (a
number being further reduced by the passing away of many working-class
Party veterans); (4) the inadequate theoretical training of the party
membership in the basics of Marxism-Leninism, a problem compounded by
the traditional U.S. baggage of “pragmatism” and “American
exceptionalism”; (5) the broader influence of reformism and opportunism
in the working-class movement; and (6) the corrosive influence of the
Party’s extensive private property holdings, particularly in real
estate, which now account for the vast majority of its operating
revenue.
Defeating this retrograde trend within our Party is an absolutely
essential task. Without its defeat, there can be no successful struggle
for socialism.
February 19, 2010http://www.cpusa.org/convention-discussion-the-old-bug-of-opportunism-returns/

The following article is being posted here not as a full
endorsement of the views expressed therein but rather to share some
insights on the Right opportunist line in the old Communist Party USA. It is originally from the website Marxism-Leninism Today:

CPUSA Executive Vice Chair Jarvis Tyner speaking in front of the flag of U.S. imperialism at the 29th CPUSA convention

[ML Today editor's note: a number of delegates to the recent CPUSA
convention have forwarded to MLToday the following document, reflecting
their considered, collective opinion of the 29th CPUSA Convention.]

Many friends and comrades have asked us: what really happened at the CPUSA Convention on May 21-23, eleven weeks ago, at Party headquarters in New York City?
So far, there are only the self-congratulatory appraisals, one by
Party chair Sam Webb and another by his supporter John Case. Both are
champions of the social reformist trend in the Party.
In the view of the Communist (that is, the Marxist-Leninist)
wing of the CPUSA, however, the May 21-23, 2010 convention was a
disaster. We see the Convention as a scandalous retreat from the US
Party’s honorable history of principled struggle. The Convention was a
retreat from socialism, class struggle, political independence, and
internationalism. The Convention gave up ground on the fight against
racism, imperialism, and monopoly.
It was not a convention rich in substance. What little substance
there was, was objectionable, and came in the Main Report and the
Composite Resolutions, which are available in full at www.cpusa.org/a-way-out-of-the-deepening-crisis/ and http://www.cpusa.org/29th-national-convention/.The Main Report

Sam Webb, leader of the old CPUSA, speaking at the 29th Convention

Sam Webb’s report could have been written by any liberal. When his
followers dutifully referred to it as “brilliant,” many a delegate could
barely believe it.
It is known that one or more members of the National Board (NB) urged
Sam Webb to take into account preconvention discussion critical of his
line. He refused, calling such criticism the outpouring of a “small
minority.” In the old days many ideas in preconvention discussion — even
if critical of the leadership — would have been taken into account and
discussed in the Main Report. That did not happen this time.
His Main Report is full of Straw Men deployed against his left
critics in the Party. Skillful at writing opportunist double talk, Webb
can compose sentences that, to the unwary reader, sound like common
sense. Read more closely, however, his formulations throw open the door
through which have marched the reformism, tailism, and American
Exceptionalism that are aggravating the crisis in the CPUSA. For
example:

Enclosing him [Obama] in a narrowly defined, tightly sealed
political category – as many on the left and right do – is a mistake…it
also goes in the direction of pitting the president against the working
class and the people. That the right does this is no surprise. But when
left and progressive people do it, it is wrong strategically and thus
extremely harmful politically.

Our vision of socialism is a work in progress…

Our socialist vision should have a contemporary and dynamic feel;
it should be rooted in today’s conditions and our national
experience. If it has a “foreign” feel to it, people will reject it.
What I want to do is correct one-sidedness in our thinking. A
transfer in class power — which will more likely be a series of
contested moments during which qualitative changes in power relations in
favor of the working-class and its allies take place…
Advances?
Webb began his report with a list of what he views as “advances”
since the last CP convention in 2005. Many of these he credits to the
Obama Administration which took office in January 2009.
It’s a curious list. Much of his list is simply Obama’s promises or
hopes hailed as if they were achievements. The Administration talks
about “reining in Wall St.” It aspires to the abolition of nuclear
weapons. Global warming has been put “on the agenda.”
Much of the list is less than earth-shaking in importance. For
example, the White House issued a proclamation on Workers’ Memorial Day.
Some items are wholly imaginary: “The pendulum of power has
shifted.” He claims “progressives are on the offensive.” “Torture was
prohibited.”2005 versus 2010: Some Facts
His list of “advances,” of course, purports to be evidence justifying
the CPUSA policy of tailing Obama and the Democrats. Here is
counterevidence:
In 2005 the US didn’t have 30,000 fresh troops in Afghanistan. Now
it has, all told, nearly 100,000 there, not counting mercenaries.
In 2005 the US had a military budget of around $600 billion. Now it is $708 billion.
In 2005 there was the blockade of Cuba. In 2010 there is a reauthorized blockade of Cuba.
In 2005 Honduras had a constitutionally elected government. Now it
has a usurper government installed by the US and its Honduran allies.
In 2005 Guantanamo was open. In 2010 Guantanamo is still open.
In 2005 the Cuban Five were in prison. In 2010 the Cuban Five remain in prison.
In 2005, in the housing bubble, predatory lenders targeted people of
color. In 2010 mortgage delinquencies, and foreclosure and evictions are
at an all-time high, and the victims are disproportionately people of
color.
In 2005 the unemployment rate of Black workers was double the
unemployment rate of white workers. In 2010 Black workers’ unemployment
rate was still double the white unemployment rate, if not more.
In 2005 we needed health care reform. In 2010 we got a new health
inurance “reform” law that entrenches the private, profit-making
insurance carriers, the most parasitic sector of finance capital.
In 2005 with Bush in the White House and Republican control of
Congress, the war in Iraq wasn’t winding down. In 2010 with Democratic
control of Congress and a Democrat in the White House, the Iraq War is
still not winding down. It is being re-branded.
In 2005 we had a president who had recently launched a war of
aggression in Iraq; in 2010 we have a president who escalated a war of
aggression in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In 2005 before the housing bubble burst, investment bankers and other
lords of high finance were raking in billions by fraudulent means. In
2010, two years after the crash exposed them, the same lords of finance,
their bonuses fattened by taxpayer billions, walk in and out of
Congressional hearings fearing no one. They thumb their noses at the
Congress and the public.
In 2005 the party had weekly newspaper we could give out at plant gates. Now it has a cyber newspaper.
If there was anything new in Webb’s report it was the reaffirmation
of tailism, more emphatically than ever. Webb stated that for the CPUSA
there is only to be “independent politics inside the Democratic Party.”The Official “Composite” Resolutions
The content of the composite resolutions pushed through by the leadership illustrate vividly the political decay.
Historically, in the US working class movement, the chief features of
right social democracy are 1) the defense of imperialism and 2) the
soft-peddling of the struggle against racism. This convention marks a
big shift in that direction.
The original resolutions from the Party grassroots were combined with
similar resolutions and “edited” by the Resolutions Committee. But the
“editing” destroyed the original political thrust of the submitted
resolutions. It would be an exaggeration to say the Composite
Resolutions bore any resemblance to the original resolutions. No
original resolutions were read to or voted on by the Convention body.
One hour was allowed for discussion of the resolutions. The
resolutions committee spent 45 minutes reading the edited resolutions,
word-for-word out loud. Discussion was cut off after 15 minutes, even
though many people were lined up to speak.
“Composite” Resolution #5, the long resolution on Peace and
Solidarity is the most disgraceful and dangerous of all the resolutions.
It is the most removed from anti-imperialist principles. It defends the
Obama foreign policy against the facts. When facts don’t conform to the
tailist policy, it adjusts the facts, asserting, for example, that the
US withdrawal from Iraq is “on track.”
The underlying fiction put forth by the leadership is: the Obama
Administration is never guilty of any crimes. The Obama Administration
only does bad things “under pressure from the right wing.”
This Peace and Solidarity resolution will be of great interest to the
international Communist movement, which can only conclude that it no
longer has a Communist Party ally in the belly of the beast.
This resolution means the CPUSA leadership is consciously choosing
alignment with Obama instead of the struggle against imperialism. The
CPUSA leaders do not want to struggle against imperialist war, which
Obama is waging and expanding.
It is easier for the CPUSA to make common cause with the US
Administration on the basis of the golden words of his various speeches
calling for nuclear arms cuts. The CPUSA wants “a new peace movement,”
as Party peace leaders have stated, one that will dodge the issue of
imperialist aggression. It will, instead, support nuclear disarmament
and stress the wastefulness of military spending in terms of funds
unavailable for economic and social needs.
This, then, is the most shameful consequence of this
opportunist leadership’s loss of its working-class and Marxist-Leninist
bearings. It is de facto acquiescing to the criminal U.S. imperialist
occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Fight for Jobs, Resolution #1, was supposed to be showcased at
the Convention. It is little different from the AFL-CIO program. A
clear Marxist approach, for example, would entail the class-struggle
demand to cut the workweek with no cut in pay. Such a remedy would
expand jobs at the expense of corporate profits. This notion is nowhere
to be found. Worse, while the resolution takes note of the especially
high unemployment rates among Blacks, Latinos, women, youth, etc. it
opportunistically does not call for affirmative action in hiring and
re-hiring them, the classic CPUSA position for many decades.
The Special Report on the Fight against Racism (Resolution # 2) True
to the key policy of Webb and his allies — Tail Obama and the Democrats —
this resolution sees the upsurge of racism (SB1070, the Arizona racial
profiling law, the wave of anti-Muslim discrimination and repression) as
a response from the ultra-right to the election of Obama. With this
resolution, the CPUSA fight against racism is no longer primarily
motivated by the necessity of building working class unity. Rather, the
CPUSA leaders fear the ultra right is trying to “disrupt” the workings
of the new Administration. In other words, the Obama Administration’s
political interests, not working-class unity, are the main
preoccupation. This resolution also dodges the question of affirmative
action.
The Resolution on Political Action (Resolution # 3), equates the
ultra- right with the Republican Party and shuns a class analysis of the
Obama Administration. This resolution could have been written by the
Democratic National Committee. It pledges to “extend and defend” the
“victories” won in the November 2008 election. It is, simply put, more
tailism.
The Resolution on Immigrant Rights (# 4) merely restates the AFL-CIO
position in favor of immigration reform. It leaves out the highly
relevant fact that deportations of undocumented workers have increased
under an Obama Administration eager to appease nativist sentiment.
According to figures from the federal immigration enforcement agency, in
2009 the Obama Administration deported 389,834 people, about 20,000
more than in 2008, the final year of the Bush Administration.
Resolution # 6, on Party-building, manages to discuss the
“challenges” to Party growth without acknowledging that the Party
membership is in steep decline. An honest discussion of why recruitment
is failing was omitted.
How many party members are there? In a report on Party Internet work
and Internet “recruiting,” one NB member inadvertently gave away the
real size of this declining party, a number often lied about. In 2005
the CPUSA had 2500 members, according to Sam Webb. At the 2010
convention the NB member in question declared “3 times a week a new
application comes by Internet, and at this rate the party could
double its size in three years.” Do the math. If there are 150 yearly
Internet applications, the current membership may be reckoned to be
around 450-500 at most.
The present leaders would have us believe, of course, that the steep
decline has nothing to do with the politics of the leadership. Rather,
it is subtly implied that it is the members who must change their ways.
Members are to blame, and they must work differently.
More on the Character of the Convention
The grim reality we face is that, in the May 2010 convention, the
right-wing faction in the leadership led by Webb, for now, has
consolidated its hold over the party.
The outcome was dreadful, but it was not entirely surprising.
Opportunism has been the increasingly assertive trend in this party for
years. This is the same right opportunist direction taken by some other
parties.
In the pre-convention discussion, articles like “Save the Party,”
give chapter and verse of our critique of the Party’s political decline
(see www.mltoday.com), and what has to be done to turn matters around.
The current Party leadership is a faction. Factions and factionalism
are not limited to oppositions to leaderships. In such cases, however,
official factionalism functions in the form of bureaucracy. Bureaucracy
stifles party democracy and membership criticism. It uses charges of
“disruption,” and, of course, “factionalism” against its left critics.
The present leaders have not — in so many words — repudiated democratic
centralism. They will enjoy the democracy. We may expect to be on the
receiving end of the centralism.
In June 2009 the factional nature of the Webb leadership was most
clearly revealed when it rammed through a policy of ending the print
edition of the Party’s weekly paper, the People’s Weekly World. It also
withheld information at subsequent National Committee (NC) meetings on
the extent of leadership and membership opposition to the move. This is
one of a series of abuses for which they still have not been held
accountable.
A notorious example from 2005, a CP convention year. The Illinois CP,
after adopting a resolution calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq,
forwarded it on to the national convention for adoption. Although
efforts were subsequently made by a clearly uncomfortable national Party
leadership to have the maker of the motion change it (“to reflect the
security interests of the Iraqi people” – i.e. to acknowledge the
legitimacy of the U.S. occupiers), the maker refused, pointing out that
even if he had wanted to do so (which he did not), it was already out of
his hands. The resolution ultimately came before the national
convention in a bundle of resolutions approved by the resolutions
committee. That bundle was adopted unanimously.
Subsequently, that resolution was willfully disregarded by the
Party’s leadership and editors. Its content was never reflected in the
Party’s own newspaper. Efforts to have this position reflected in the
Party’s publications were repeatedly quashed. Nor was the resolution
implemented in the Party’s mass work, particularly on the national
level. It remains a dead letter to this day.
The justification for this willful neglect was that Sam Webb, in his
report to the convention, suggested a “different approach” — one
acceptable to Democrats — calling for a “timetable” or an “exit
strategy” from Iraq. This approach was and essentially remains a
stalling tactic, an indefinite postponement of U.S. withdrawal that has
resulted in many thousands of additional Iraqi and U.S. deaths and the
continued presence of over 100,000 U.S. troops (and a similar number of
“contractors”) in Iraq up to this very day.
Webb’s report, which was presented without any opportunity for
substantive amendment, was perfunctorily adopted. His report was then
used to invalidate the clear antiwar resolution.
And this from a Party leadership that purports to champion democracy!
Stifling Convention Democracy
The convention, a caricature of democracy, was tightly controlled by the present leaders.
It was small: only 158 delegates and 50 guests. Convention managers
filled the three days with ludicrous time wasters, such as a
bagpipe-playing session. They contrived delegate selection rules to give
regions with no clubs a vote, especially if they were reliably
pro-incumbent. For example, a defender of the right-wing line
represented the state of West Virginia.
Unlike previous conventions, the mood of this convention showed
little sense of internationalism, and little sense of outrage against
the imperialist wars being waged by the US. The convention was stacked,
as much as possible, with people willing to go along to get along, as
well as the current leadership and its flatterers.
What was the mood? One Party worker, a man in his 50s stated:At the convention, I felt like an outsider. My “home in this rock,”
to quote Paul Robeson, seemed to be no longer my home. My political home
has been transformed without my consent or agreement. It has been
stolen. They have put an end to the necessary tools of our trade, so to
speak, the party paper and timely class-oriented pamphlets on the
important issues facing our working class. Tailing and nonsense analysis
replaced class-struggle analysis and leadership. In general, it seemed
to me that our misleadership has lost their class-conscious common
sense.
Clearly, the goal, which conference organizers achieved, was to run a
top-down, stage-managed convention that would squelch free debate,
waste time, and run out the clock.
There was little time devoted to face-to-face discussion at the
convention. People could not engage in discussion to collectively shape
an agenda on how to best move the organization forward.
Most of the Convention’s time was squandered on self-congratulatory
speeches from the leadership that took credit for general political
trends way beyond any conceivable CPUSA influence. The “calls to action”
amounted to nothing more than calls for legislative lobbying and
electioneering for Democrats.
Yet the rightists in leadership had been worried about loss of
control the convention, though, regrettably, their worries proved
unfounded. In a preconvention comment one of their supporters voiced the
worry:A narrowly based, but very persistent campaign has been waged on
the Internet and in the comments sections of CP publications — by my
count nearly 20% of commenters and discussants and much more if you
count the number of words — with the sole effective purpose being to
distract the Left, and especially the CP, from working within the
broadly defined Obama coalition, or from focusing on a majority-based
agenda of reforms.
The right had reason for anxiety. Most of the resolutions, like most
of the pre-convention discussion (available at the www. MLToday.com
website), opposed the reformist line of the present leadership. It
opposed the shutting down of the print edition of the People’s World. It
supported ending the fawning tailism of Obama and the Democrats. It
called for the Party to shed right opportunism and to return to its
anti-imperialist, class struggle, and anti-war principles.
We believe the convention outcome does not reflect the political
balance in the Party membership as whole. The grassroots opposition
sentiment, which is substantial, was barely reflected. The convention
delegates were carefully chosen by procedures that guaranteed majority
support of the incumbents. In all organizations incumbents have certain
advantages. This was done by various means, quite a few of them
flagrantly dishonest, such as completely ignoring the content of
properly submitted resolutions from the Party grassroots.
That the national convention would be a travesty of democracy was
predictable, perhaps, from the chicanery at the state conventions that
preceded it – the Illinois District convention being one of the worst
cases. In the Illinois convention, the organizers killed time by
watching videos and holding tutorials on how to send email. In Illinois
and elsewhere the Webb faction maneuvered to keep key, articulate
leaders opposed to the rightist trend away from the national convention.
The national convention was held in a room small in size, allegedly
for economy reasons. The Webb faction has vacillated between 1)
declaring a financial crisis that rules out face-to-face meetings and 2)
denying any financial crisis exists if they are claiming that there is
no problem with their stewardship. The spin depends on needs of the
moment. Truth and consistency are not the guiding principles.
They smothered debate not only by ignoring preconvention resolutions
and discussion, but also by making the convention smaller and less
representative. Rural areas of the country, even if there was only one
party member in a given state, got a voting delegate. But some
industrial clubs were completely unrepresented.
They also isolated those critics of the Party line who were at the
convention. One of the strongest of their opponents, an NC member from
Kentucky, objected to adding to the NC a Midwesterner who evinced no
understanding of the role of clubs in Party structure. He also objected
to another candidate involved in questionable financial activity. He was
overruled and the two were added to the NC. For his pains, he himself
was dropped from the NC. Whenever he rose to speak, he was surrounded by
Webb loyalists.
An Air of Unreality
Most leadership speeches proclaimed a mad eagerness to work in an
imaginary coalition with the liberal wing of Big Business. In his Main
Report, Webb boasted, “Broadly speaking, our view of the general
conditions of struggle and the strategic path forward was and is on the
money.”
A long-time Party peace movement leader made such delusional
statements as: “Obama is listening to us [e.g., Peace Action, Military
Families Speak Out]. He meets with us. We can’t close this door by
criticizing him.” “We need to help Obama resist being pushed to the
right.” “Obama’s sentiment on Afghanistan is shifting our way.” “Obama
has realistic assessment on the withdrawal of troops.”
Thus, the content of the convention was remarkably unconnected to the
Party’s real mission – leading struggle. Such pressing issues as
climate change, one billion hungry people, a waning labor movement, a
health care system given over to major profiteering, populations
displaced and migrating, US militarization of the planet, and more
received little or no discussion.
A Dearth of Internationalism
In the Convention’s deliberations there was little discussion of
developments abroad: the multiplying wars, global economic crisis,
struggles like that of the Haitian people for survival against racism
and colonialism, resistance to US bases and militarization, popular
resistance to the coup government in Honduras, and a real push to end
the blockade and free the Cuban Five.
As for our relations with other Communist parties, Convention
organizers minimized the number of observers from the international
Communist movement. When realistic comrades pointed out that, if
budgetary considerations were paramount, then inviting the UN or
consular staff resident in New York from such counties as China,
Vietnam, Cuba, and North Korea was an option, for the price of a subway
ride. The Party leadership resisted that obvious solution.
In the end, several parties did appear to give short greetings. The Vietnamese delegate spoke.
Convention managers minimized delegates’ knowledge what the international Communist movement was saying to the CPUSA.
For example, the Webb circle tried to suppress the full Greek
Communist Party (KKE) greetings, especially the paragraphs that dealt
with opportunism in the international Communist movement. When the full
KKE text was handed in writing to the delegates (thanks to the fact that
the KKE had speedily posted the greetings in English at its website)
Webb and his supporters were forced to issue a message of solidarity to
the KKE and eventually to post the whole KKE statement at the CPUSA web
site. Of course, now that it is there, they are making no effort to call
attention to it.Youth
One of the most active YCLers expressed alarm at the lack of young
delegates at the convention. There were, of course, YCL guests (and a
few delegates) but participation from youth was scant. A healthy and
vibrant Communist Party would give special attention to the training and
support of young leaders and cadre. The lack of youth participation is a
portent that the current political line of the leadership has no
future.
The convention was stacked, as much as possible, with people willing
to “go along to get along,” as well as the current leaders and their
hangers-on. YCLers were given a code to register as guests, and when
some leaders of the YCL tried to register they were denied access to the
convention for the reason that “there was no room.” This was
systematically done for political reasons.
Resistance to the Line
With plenary sessions a choreographed sham, what rebellion there was
could only take place in skirmishes in the workshops and panels, not the
plenaries. There were good discussions in the workshops. However, there
were no minutes taken or reports given back to the larger body.
In one workshop, for example, the information technology panacea was
challenged by an Arizona delegate who pointed out the reality of the
digital divide.
In the “Club Life and Education” workshop the majority of
participants steered the discussion towards theory – i.e., the
leadership’s failure to incorporate and develop it and the need to focus
on the Marxist-Leninist theoretical education of existing and new
members. Indeed, the consensus of this workshop was that the leadership
needed to be told that the Party needs to pay more attention to theory.
The YCL co-convener of the workshop attempted to shift the discussion
and assert control a number of times, without much success
Two Controversies
Two controversies burst out into the open at the Convention. One was the censorship of the KKE greetings, mentioned above.
The other was the treatment of the resolution on independence for
Puerto Rico. The Massachusetts District resolution on Puerto Rican
liberation was substantially the same as in the last convention.
However, the nervous chair, People’s World editor Terrie Albano,
perceived the resolution as an act of insurrection from rebel districts
(Massachusetts, Kentucky, Indiana). Afraid of debate, Albano shut down
discussion. This enraged Party members of Puerto Rican descent and other
backers of the Massachusetts resolution, several of whom walked out.
One mendacious “special resolution” deserves a word. It emanated from
the national leadership, commending the New York District for helping
to re-launch May Day. New York trade union comrades familiar with the
facts pointed out that national Party leaders had done their best not to
participate in May Day on the grounds that “Obama need support; he
doesn’t need criticism.” Sam Webb and Scott Marshall, Party labor
secretary, had rejected early pleas for help from the trade unionists
and immigrant groups trying to relaunch it.
More Liquidation
The “Composite” resolutions represent ideological liquidation.
All the resolutions repudiate the idea that the CPUSA will seek to play
a leading role in anything or initiate anything. It will merely
“participate in,” “help,” “encourage,” “join in,” “give support to,” and
so on.
But there was physical liquidation too. The convention
decided henceforth to hold only one National Committee meeting a year.
The other three meetings will be conference calls, which are, of course,
easier to manipulate.
It was clear from the comments of Roberta Wood, Party
secretary-treasurer, that the Party will rent Winston-Unity Hall, a
floor of the New York City headquarters building, to finance a pay raise
for Party staff. It increasing appears that the paid staff is asserting
its group interests regardless of the consequences to the organization
or its rank and file members who were not present as delegates.
The CPUSA leadership composition became more skewed with near total
removal of independent and critical voices from the NC. The leadership
is now quite inbred, both politically and otherwise. The daughter of Sam
and Sue Webb — a schoolteacher in Boston who plays little or no role in
Party life there — was put on the National Committee.
There was an unsuccessful effort by Danny Rubin, an ideological ally
and mentor of Webb, to enhance the powers of the National Board (NB),
which has become really a rubber-stamp council of Webb loyalists. Rubin
wished to centralize power at the expense of the NC on matters of Party
constitutional change.
The incoming NC’s size remains about the same, still 82 or 84. The
convention dropped 12 or 14 NC members, and added a like amount. Some
departing NC members were not removed, they resigned in disgust.
Party veterans noted that the reports on local activity, customary at
such gatherings were not “what we are doing” They were “what’s going
on,” that is, what others are doing. It was another expression of the
Party’s loss of purpose.
At the convention younger comrades barely spoke, most wondering what
to make of the proceedings. Veterans of many Party conventions saw no —
or at any rate few — new faces in key districts
Forty-five minutes of Webb’s keynote remarks were taped for C-SPAN.
His supporters considered this to be of great importance. It seems to us
that inviting C-SPAN to tape Webb’s presentation demonstrated that his
intended audience is the TV-viewing public, not specifically Communists.
His generalizations and lack of analysis could only be directed to
non-Communists.
Conclusions
The Convention was undemocratic, scripted, non-Communist (in fact anti-Communist at
times), and devoid of Marxist analysis of present conditions. One
delegate, completely disgusted, predicted, “They won’t even bother to
hold another convention.”
Validating our pessimistic analysis, since the convention, matters
have continued to slide down the slippery slope. The first NC conference
call took up the topic of “re-branding” the Party, as if the Party were
a tube of toothpaste requiring a more modern name, like changing
“Ipana” to “Aquafresh.” Reportedly, a consultant will be hired to
advise on re-branding, including re-naming.
As one seasoned comrade who has subsequently resigned said privately
to us, the convention result shows “the political gangrene of
opportunism has spread very far indeed.”
Gangrene looks like this: one of the most appalling moments in this
appalling convention came when Joel Wendland, editor of Political
Affairs, a “Journal of Marxist Thought,” stated: “Isn’t it great we can
have a CPUSA convention and not hear ‘Marx said this’ and ‘Lenin said
that’?!” “We need to shed old skin on theoretical level.”
Evidently, Wendland is following his own advice. A few weeks back, he
abandoned any theory of imperialism. He posted without criticism a
proclamation from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Venezuelan
Independence Day, as if the US State Department were a champion of
Venezuelan independence. We believe the real State Department view is
expressed in the seven new US military bases in neighboring Colombia,
authorized by Obama and Clinton, aimed at strangling Venezuelan
independence and democracy.
We view this convention as a hijacking of the Party by a faction of
the leadership. Many good Party members are wondering: Can this party be
saved?
We don’t know. It will take a fierce struggle. But most of us intend to try.
The present leadership is already in consultation with social
reformist groups (DSA, CCDS, the reformist Freedom Road). It’s obvious
that most of the present leaders don’t want a Communist Party. They view
Leninism and even the name CPUSA as “baggage.”
As for us, a few voices among many, we are urging the healthy forces
in the Party not to quit, but to stay and fight. How many will leave we
do not yet know. Those who have left are honorable comrades who see
resignation as a matter of principle. We have resolved to stay close to
them and to work together closely. They have welcomed that.
Matters are serious. Yet, there are factors on our side. Here are a
few: our opponents often miscalculate. For example, delaying the
convention for one year proved a miscalculation on their part, insofar
as it more easily enabled the left opposition in the Party to point out
how absurd the official CPUSA “analysis” of Obama and the Democrats is.
The international Communist movement is on our side. It is looking on
with dismay and alarm at the deterioration within the CPUSA leadership.
As the present US Administration moves steadily rightward, to justify
its policies becomes ever more difficult. Disgusted by a Party that sees
its sole mission the election of Democrats, people walk away or give
up. The membership dwindles, and the organizational crisis deepens. The
class struggle is sharpening in the US and around the world. Reformism
has no solutions for US working people.
We doubt that there can be any recovery in the CPUSA until Sam Webb and his allies are removed from their present positions.
The daunting immediate task ahead for Marxist-Leninists in the US is
to figure out how to move forward inside and outside the CPUSA.
_____________________________________________
August 18, 2010

What is really significant about Chairperson Webb’s “report” is that
it is not a report at all. The document is written in vague generalities
with a great deal of bombast, pontification and posturing. Chairperson
Webb fails to specify what the CPUSA has been doing as an organized
party or what it intends to do in the future. He only makes vague
statements about how almost all of the members participated in the
election. By participation, does he mean managing campaigns, running
candidates, doing fundraising or working in a capitalist party’s
campaign? Perhaps he just means voting. This is unclear.

It appears that Chairman Webb has forgotten Marx’ teaching that
“content precedes form.” This paper is all about form with little regard
to content.

Let’s examine the title of the document “Defeat for the right,
victory for the people & democracy.” The first phrase “defeat for
the right” is hard to fathom. Although it must be conceded that
President Obama has taken a more progressive stance on a number of
issues when compared with his opponent, candidate Romney, this does not
mean that President Obama is a socialist or communist. He is a member of
one of the two ruling bourgeois parties in the United States. For this
reason, it can be expected that he will support the interests of the
wealthy classes more often than not. It should also be remembered that
he was elected with the endorsements of both Colin Powell and Michael
Bloomberg. His campaign received truckloads of money from the
ultra-wealthy and their corporate surrogates. These endorsements and
financial contributions must be remunerated by Mr. Obama and such
remuneration will dearly cost the people.

The second phrase “victory for the people” is also hard to stomach.
To which people is Mr. Webb referring? Is he referring to the people of
Palestine and/or Iran? Is he referring to workers in this country who
are oppressed? Is he referring to labor union members who received no
support from the president on passing the Employee Free Choice Act? Is
he referring to maimed and deceased veterans returning from the endless
imperialist wars in the Middle East and elsewhere? Perhaps Mr. Webb is
referring to the people on Wall Street and in corporate offices across
the USA. If you look at Mr. Obama’s record, it is clear that he has
served those people well over the last four years.
The third phrase “victory for… Democracy” also presents some
problems. To what kind of democracy is Mr. Webb referring? In the USA,
there is only one form of democracy and it is bourgeois democracy. This
form of democracy serves to protect the interests of the wealthy
classes. It protects the wealthy classes from the demands of working
people. It upholds the interests of imperialism, while simultaneously
creating an illusion among workers that they really have a voice in the
conduct of the business of the country. Although elections, even
bourgeois elections, are an important arena for struggle, we should not
harbor any illusions about their real purpose, which is to prop up the
wealthy classes. As Lenin said, “elections solve nothing.”
Mr. Webb says “The better angels of the American people spread their
wings.” This phraseology would be appropriate if written by a Catholic
priest rather than the Chairperson of the Communist Party. Such
idealistic thinking should be anathema to a Communist Party based on
Marxism Leninism and dialectical materialism.

It is interesting that Mr. Webb notes that “An African-American
president was reelected to the presidency, the Democrats unexpectedly
strengthened their hand in the Senate and House, new progressive voices,
like Elizabeth Warren, are coming to Washington, and victories,
including for marriage equality, occurred at the state level.” Although
it is a fact that an African-American was elected to the office of
presidency, what does this mean in terms of the progressive struggle? In
fact, the statement reflects some racist thinking. Martin Luther King,
Jr told us that people should be judged not by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character. It opens the question “What would
Mr. Webb suggest we do if Dennis Kucinich was running against Clarence
Thomas?” Mr. Webb’s reference to Elizabeth Warren “coming to Washington”
fails to recognize that also the right wing Tea Party extremist, Ted
Cruz, from Texas, will also be moving to Washington.
Mr. Webb maintains “The Communist Party said a year ago that the 2012
elections would be the main front of the class and democratic struggle
and subsequent events have confirmed that fact.” To what events is Mr.
Webb referring? Many people agree that wages and benefits of workers are
always the front line of the class struggle. The fight for peace and
justice and the right to organize are also main fronts of the class
struggle. The fight against imperialism is also an important front in
the class struggle. Mr. Webb goes on “Indeed, we argued…that defeating
right-wing extremism was the key to moving the whole chain of democratic
struggle forward.” There is only one way to defeat right-wing extremism
once and for all and that will happen when socialism replaces
capitalism on a global level. Again, it must be asked that if Mr. Webb
believed that this election was crucial to the class struggle, what did
the CPUSA do to participate in that struggle? Mr. Webb makes note that
“a few weeks before the election, I attended a rally in Cleveland
organized by the Teamsters, where many labor leaders and members of
Congress spoke of the urgency of supporting President Obama.” Gus Hall
and William Foster must be spinning in their graves. They would
certainly ask why the chairperson of the CPUSA was merely attending a
labor rally but not speaking. They might also ask if the party attempted
to organize any activities of its own.

Mr. Webb makes a good point when he says “Not least, President Obama
needs to hear from the tens of millions who reelected him.” However, he
goes on to confusing statements such as “The president is the most
popular politician in the country. Nobody has the political and moral
authority that he has. He isn’t a radical, but by the same token to
classify him as a run-of-the-mill capitalist politician doesn’t fit
either. Of the Democratic Party presidents of the 20th century, none had
the deep democratic sensibilities that he possesses. It is crucial that
he lead the struggle.” To what struggle is Mr. Webb referring? Is he
referring to the fact that Mr. Obama has deported more immigrants than
any other president? Is he referring to Mr. Obama’s use of drones to
assassinate foreign nationals? Is he referring to the struggle for the
Employee Free Choice Act? Mr. Webb also states “Which is where
communists, socialists and left and progressive people come into the
picture. Our main task is to build broad people’s unity, guarantee the
participation of the key social and class forces, counter the right-wing
narrative with a working-class and people’s narrative, and bring
forward an alternative program.” It would be helpful if Mr. Webb could
be specific about the concrete actions that need to happen to bring this
about.

Mr. Webb writes “For some time now our party has recognized powerful
progressive trends in the labor movement. In this election, the actions
of labor brought those trends to a new level.” The question must be
asked “What is the party doing to build and support ‘progressive trends
in the labor movement’”?

In his section on “foreign policy”, Mr. Webb takes some issue with
the Obama administration “There is some reappraisal of the conduct of
our foreign policy going on in the Obama administration and the national
security state.” Again, Mr. Webb needs to be more specific about this
“reappraisal.” He goes on “In all likelihood some changes will occur,
not necessarily unimportant ones, but at the same time don’t expect the
Obama administration or US ruling circles to give up their global
ambitions.” Without labeling administration policies as imperialist, he
does specify a number of global hotspots to which the Obama
administration has mimicked the positions of right wing extremists
including Iran, Palestine, Cuba, DPRK and Latin America among others.
However, he proposes no action to oppose imperialism.

Mr. Webb seems to not have learned anything from Mr. Romney’s 47%
remark. Speaking of the CPUSA, he writes “Our main audience is not among
those who sat out the election struggle, but among those who were in
its front ranks.” Since reports indicate that only 60% of eligible
voters voted in the most recent election, he is dismissing the other 40%
who may have been disgruntled with the capitalist parties and their
policies. He is also dismissing people who are not eligible to vote.
This would include large segments of the population such as undocumented
immigrant workers, and people with felonies. He is also dismissing all
those who have failed to register to vote without any study of why they
failed to register. He notes that the CPUSA is too small. With such
myopic vision, one can only say “no wonder.”

In response to his vague statements about building the party, the
question should be asked “What are the concrete steps the party will
take to build a larger party?”
Another man by the name of Webb, Jack Webb, who played the part of
Sergeant Joe Friday, in the television series Dragnet many years ago
used to say, “Just the facts, ma’am.” This is important to remember when
discussing politics and economics. If we Communists are to have any
credibility at all, we must be scientific in our analyses, method and
program. We need leadership which meets those standards. The people of
this country don’t need any more talking heads. There is enough of that
on their TV.

Saturday, November 3, 2012

WORKERS:
It is the duty of every class-conscious worker in America to boycott the coming elections. A worker’s vote cast for any of the parties or their candidates standing for election — is a vote for reaction or reform! Whether it be the Republican Party and Harding or the Democratic Party and Cox — whether it be the Farm Labor Party and Christensen, the Socialist Party and Debs, or the Socialist Labor and Cox — a worker’s vote cast for any of these parties or their candidates IS A VOTE TO PERPETUATE THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM BASED UPON WAGE SLAVERY and the ROBBERY OF YOUR CLASS. IT IS A VOTE TO STRENGTHEN THE CAPITALIST GOVERNMENT — BY MEANS OF WHICH THE WORKING CLASS IS KEPT IN SUBJECTION BY LIES, FRAUD, DECEPTION, FORCE, AND VIOLENCE.

Do you workers want to perpetuate your own class slavery? Do you want to maintain and strengthen the capitalist government which has shown by its every act that it is nothing but the tool of the capitalist class and acts against the working class every time?
Then cast your vote in the coming elections! If you believe in capitalist wars in which the workers are called upon to lay down their lives for the profit of the master class — vote in the coming elections! If you believe in the high cost of living — vote in the coming elections! If you believe in being LOCKED OUT BY the BOSS — vote in the coming elections! If you believe in being clubbed and shot by the police and soldiers of the capitalist government — vote in the coming elections! If you believe in lynching — vote in the coming elections! If you believe in deportation of radical workers — vote in the coming elections! If you believe in NATIONWIDE RAIDS UPON REVOLUTIONARY WORKING CLASS ORGANIZATION — vote in the coming elections!

If you believe in DESTROYING SOVIET RUSSIA — vote in the coming elections!

If you believe in supporting REACTIONARY POLAND against the free workers and peasants’ government of Russia — vote in the coming elections! If you believe in sending arms, ammunition, and supplies to the enemies of Soviet Russia — vote in the coming elections!

If you believe in perpetuating prostitution, crime, child labor, and the thousand-and-one economic evils from which the masses in this country are suffering — vote in the coming elections!

A vote cast in the coming elections for any political party now in the field — is a vote in favor of the capitalist class and against the working class! The Republican and Democratic parties stand openly for the capitalist class — whose economic interests they represent. The Farm Labor Party stands for Government Ownership and Reform — which leads to State Capitalism — strengthens the capitalist system and keeps the working class chained in wage-slavery. The Socialist Party and the Socialist Labor Party pretend they are for the abolition of capitalism and the emancipation of the workers from wage-slavery, but actually, by adopting wrong tactics support the lies and deception of capitalist “democracy” and help to fasten these lies upon the workers — thus aiding the capitalist class in preventing the workers from taking independent class action for their own emancipation. These reform parties fool the workers by telling them that the capitalist system can be abolished PEACEFULLY. This is a lie! AN OUTRAGEOUS, DAMNABLE LIE! The capitalist system cannot be abolished peacefully — whether by the ballot box or any other method.

The present capitalist government is nothing but the concealed dictatorship of the capitalist class. Its army, navy, courts, police, bureaucracy, schools, press, church, etc. are the instruments through which the capitalist class perpetuate the lies of capitalist “democracy” and club and shoot you into submission when you wake up and attempt to resist their domination!
Every intelligent worker knows that so long as the capitalist class owns and controls the organs of publicity, of teaching and moulding the minds of the workers — the workers cannot free themselves.

Every intelligent worker also knows that no capitalist class ever gave up its power without a violent struggle. Look across at Europe and see how the ruling classes are striving by every possible means to keep the workers down! See how the German capitalist class combines with “yellow” Socialist to crush every uprising of the German workers! See how the Hungarian capitalist class, with the assistance of the “yellow” Socialist, destroys the workers organization, throws them into jails, places them against the wall to face firing squads, shoots, hangs, and slays without mercy!

See how the French capitalist class tried to destroy the workers organizations! How they suppress the revolts of their soldiers who are called upon to fight in Russia, Siberia, and Africa and who refuse — see how they shoot the workers down in strikes or demonstrations! Look at bloody England! One hundred thousand troops, fully armed, are sent into Ireland to suppress the Irish revolt. Thousands of soldiers are busy shooting defenseless Indian natives whose only crime is that they desire freedom from the rule of Britain. In Arabia, Turkey, wherever English colonies are rising up against the merciless rule of England — the English capitalist class uses FORCE to crush them!
And when the English workers themselves, who are beginning to think, act, make up their minds to destroy the capitalist government, the English capitalist class will use its troops and machine guns against them no less readily than it uses them against the natives of the colonies.
In Japan, Italy, Finland, everywhere the same thing occurs. Do you American workers believe that the American capitalist class is more tenderhearted than the European capitalist class?
Forget it! The American capitalist class is the richest, most powerful and reactionary class in the world. Just look at the history of the class struggle in the United States. At every step in the struggle of the workers to better their conditions the capitalist class and its government met them with persecution, repression, and oppression unequaled in all history. Homestead — Ludlow — Calumet — West Virginia — Paterson — Lawrence — McKees Rock — Seattle — Butte — these are only a few of the tragic milestones that mark the struggle of the American working class for BREAD — JUST BREAD! Or take the Longshoremen Strike — the Coal Strike — the Steel Strike — with its injunction, martial law, raids, deportations, and arrests — does this look as if the American capitalist class will ever give up its power without a bitter and violent struggle?

FORGET THIS FOOLISH AND CRIMINAL IDEA OF A PEACEFUL CHANGE! AWAY WITH THESE REFORM PARTIES THAT PREACH SUCH RIDICULOUS IDEAS TO THE WORKERS!
IT IS TIME THAT YOU AMERICAN WORKERS WAKE UP TO THE REAL FACTS!

THE WORKERS AND PEASANTS OF RUSSIA ARE SHOWING THE WAY! THE EUROPEAN WORKERS ARE LEARNING FAST FROM SOVIET RUSSIA AND WILL SOON THROW THE WHOLE GANG OF ROBBERS WITH THEIR “YELLOW” Socialist apologists and their capitalist governments into the garbage-heap!

Learn from your Russian and European brothers! The Communist Party of America — the only revolutionary working class political party — is the only party that stands for the emancipation for the working class from wage slavery! The Communist Party advocates mass action of the armed workers in an armed insurrection and civil war as the ONLY means of conquering political power for the workers, destroying the capitalist government, and establishing a Workers’ Government — A Soviet Government — the dictatorship of the Proletariat — as the ONLY MEANS OF ABOLISHING the capitalist system and emancipating the working class from WAGE SLAVERY. In order to bring this message before the masses of the American working class the Communist Party will utilize every weapon at its disposal for propaganda and agitation. It accepts participation in election campaigns and parliamentary activity as one of these weapons — but for revolutionary propaganda and agitation only. The Communist Party, however, will abstain from parliamentary activity whenever conditions make such a course necessary.

The Communist Party will have to boycott the coming elections, for reasons which are familiar to every informed worker. The Communist Party has been outlawed by the capitalist government and declared illegal in capitalist courts. Its leaders are all under indictment or in jail. Thousands of its members are held for deportation or trial. Under such conditions the Communist Party could not participate in the coming election and carry its revolutionary propaganda and agitation directly to the workers at shop meetings and hall meetings or debates with the “yellow” Socialists before the workers and show them up as a bunch of vote-seeking reformers.

The Communist Party will have to carry on its propaganda through its underground leaflets, literature, and press until the workers of America become class-conscious and compel the capitalist government to keep its hands off it. Therefore, because the Communist Party is the only revolutionary political working class party — and because this party has boycotted the coming elections — WE, YOUR FELLOW WORKERS AND COMRADES of the COMMUNIST PARTY OF AMERICA CALL UPON YOU THE WORKERS OF AMERICA to boycott THE COMING ELECTIONS!
- The Communist Party of America.

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Let us begin by saying that we appreciate the work it took to produce the
essay. It was put together with honesty and I believe that Sam Webb truly
believes what he writes. That being said, we offer a different perspective.
We cannot afford to do away or retire the term, Marxism-Leninism. For one
thing, to say that “it has a negative connotation among ordinary Americans,
even in left and progressive circles” is running from the class struggle.
Our job as communists is to educate ordinary Americans about communism and
what it is all about. For instance, production and manufacturing in this
country are at an all time low. What little there is being produced is not
socially useful production. That is one reason why unemployment levels are
so high. To begin with, our party should review its industrial
concentration policy and call for a return of manufacturing jobs to the USA. We
should
use all legal means at our disposal to initiate unemployed councils, lobby
for legislation, work with industrial unions that are on the same page, and
put out information in our communities that says that the Communist Party
is for full employment and we have the science to prove it. The pamphlet, “
Feeling locked out of the American Dream?” is a good start. We should
return to our roots. The term Marxism-Leninism has served our party well for
ninety years. Running away from it gains us nothing.
As for Stalin, the main reason for using the term, Marxism-Leninism has to
do with his (and Lenin's) work on the national question. He was faced with
uniting a nation by protecting the rights of peoples that were not
Russian, fighting against great Russian chauvinism, while at the same time,
fighting against nationalism. Using the science of Marxism-Leninism this was
accomplished, culminating in the so-called Stalin constitution of 1936
which guaranteed the rights of all citizens in the U.S.S.R. Further, the
science of Marxism-Leninism corrected the error in the theory of Marx and Engels
that assumed that socialism would first come to the industrially advanced
countries of the world. As we now see, socialism first came to Russia (the
U.S.S.R.), the eastern bloc countries, and then China, and then Korea, and
then Cuba, and then Viet Nam and Laos. None of these countries were
industrially advanced. Stalin wrote volumes on the need to support national
liberation movements to bring about socialism in underdeveloped countries and
provided material support toward that end.
To say that Marxism-Leninism “took formal shape during the Stalin period
during which Soviet scholars, under Stalin's guidance, systematized and
simplified earlier Marxist writings-not to mention adapted ideology to the
needs of the Soviet state and party” does not mean that we can not do the same
in the United States. Of course Stalin and the Central Committee of the
party adapted ideology to the needs of the soviet state and party! That is
what every political party that takes power does. That is what we should do.
But that does not mean that the term Marxism-Leninism is foreign by any
means. Stalin learned from Lenin. Hence the term, Marxism-Leninism.
Where it is said, “Marxism is revolutionary in theory and practice, but it
doesn't consider “gradual” and “reform” to be dirty words,” no one is
suggesting that about Marxism-Leninism. Perú and their party led by
Secretaty General Roberto De La Cruz Huamán are leaders of large numbers of
masses. At a recent demonstration that was called by a “coalition” of left
parties of which the PCP is a part, along with the Confederación General de
Trabajadores de Perú (CGTP) the workers of Perú made minimum demands. It was a
huge legal demonstration against neo-liberalism and the selling off of
public entities (privatization). This demonstration is just part of the
effort by the five left parties that includes the PCP and the CGTP to win the
Presidency of the nation on April 10. There is a good chance. Of course, they
are using Marxist-Leninist tactics that work in their country, as the
Chinese party is fond of saying ,with their own “characteristics.”
Before we fight for the interests of the entire nation, we must fight for
the interests of the working class. When people see us fighting for the
workers, many will join us, including small business people and people from
other parties. To wait until the working class is destroyed “to fight for the
interests of the entire nation” is just wrong.
“The deterioration of infrastructure, the destruction of the social safety
net, the undermining of the public school system, the decay of urban and
rural communities, the privatization of public assets, the growth of poverty
and inequality, the hollowing out of manufacturing and cities, the
lowering of workers wages, and a faltering -now stagnant-domestic economy” are the
reasons why we should be fighting for the working class first.
It is no secret that pension funds in OECD countries lost $3.5 trillion
(US) in market value during the global financial crisis and are still unable
to fully restore savings to their 2008 levels. Defined benefit pension
funds are underfunded because of wild speculation throughout the world's
capitalist markets. The workers are punished through no fault of their own. This
is one area of the financial mess that needs to be properly explained. The
CPUSA should issue a position paper on the subject of pension funds,
noting first of all that workers take less money in wages with the expectation
that pension funds will be available when they reach retirement age.
This is not to say that there are problems that effect all of humanity,
like global warming, nuclear power and weapons, and natural disasters. Of
course we do all we can to identify these problems and make the struggle for
a better world part of our program.
“The struggle for socialism goes through phases and stages, probably more
than we allow for in our current writings and program.” Exactly! We have a
defeat and retreat strategy. The CPUSA seems to be afraid of the capitalist
system. Workers can sense this. They know when the party is weak. That is
one reason they don't join in greater numbers.
“A party of socialism understands that in any broad coalition of social
change, competing views are inevitable.” The role of the left is to express
its views candidly, but in a way that strengthens rather than fractures
broad unity, which is a prerequisite for social progress.” That is why Lenin
and the bolsheviks formed “a party of a new type.” A communist party.
They found that working with the social democrats was a defeatist policy.
Later they found that working with the Trotskyites was a bad idea. It depends
on how one defines left. We all know that the CIA works overtime since the
end of the cold war setting up left groups that are for the purpose of
discrediting the communist movements and parties. There is another very
important reason they form these groups. They finance them to fool workers who are
looking for solutions to their problems. A party of the 21st century must
be ideologically strong so as not to be enamored by the glitz and glamor of
capitalism. Now the social-democratic elites have cell phones and
blackberries, and laptops and they drink their Starbucks coffee in the morning
and they travel like kings while the majority of people in the world have
nothing to eat! We must have humility if we are to be real communists.
“Don't be surprised to see a movement back to class concepts and
historical materialsm -not to mention a new interest in the theoretical
contributions and political biography of Lenin. No one in this or the last century
can
match his theoretical body of work on questions of class, democracy,
alliance policy, nationality, power, and socialist revolution.” In fact in the
former Soviet Union, there is renewed interest in the lives of Lenin and
Stalin, and their popularity there is rising. The Communist Party of the
Russian Federation placed second in the regional elections, passing the Russia
United party. All the more reason not to change Marxism-Leninism to simply
Marxism.
“A party of socialism in the 21st century doesn't irrevocably lock social
forces, organizations and political personalities into tightly enclosed
social categories that allow no space for these same forces, organizations
and personalities to change under the impact of issues, events, and changing
correlations of power.” We seriously doubt that a party as small as the
CPUSA can have this kind of power. We had better grow first, before we assume
such things.
Regarding immigrants having a tradition of struggle, suggesting that their
spirit is militant and anti-capitalist while failing to mention the neo -
liberal policies in their countries of origin that caused them to emmigrate
makes the assumption that they were born that way and that all immigrants
are that way. They have to continue the fight in their own communities in
the United States which is why many immigrants don't join the party. We have
witnessed this with my own eyes. We work with immigrants every day. Immigr
ants work within their own community. We have worked many years in the
past within the Irish community and had to fight against nationalism and
anti-communism. Despite this, we were able to establish a party club of Irish
immigrants, and they were mainly concerned with problems back home. We are
not suggesting that all communities are the same, but we are patient, and we
observe how immigrants react to our party. Are we really interested in
their problems or are we just using them? It is something we should discuss
before assume that all immigrants will jump at the chance to join the party
because they are immigrants.
We have to ask, why take over the Democratic Party? What can be gained by
such talk? Are we organizing them or are they organizing us? Are we having
influence with them, or are they having influence with us? Who is leading
whom? Wouldn't it be better to work with workers' organizations directly,
that is to say, the unions and the union movement? Wouldn't it be better to
organize a coalition of parties and left forces into an electoral coalition
that can win real political power like they have done successfully in Perú
and El Salvador? A party with its own independence and it's own name, led
by labor and communists? That is what we see . And it is working. First we
tried to work with the old parties, and we were sold out. That is what the
Democratic Party is good at.
When we speak of Stalin, we need too speak of him in the continuum of
history. Before there was a Soviet Union there was Russia, with its culture,
tradition, and its brutality. Stalin acknowledged publicly that “the purges
and executions of hundreds of thousands of communists and other patriots
and the labor camps that incarcerated,
exploited and sent untold numbers of [innocent] Soviet people to early
deaths, and the removal of whole peoples from their homelands.” The most
precise number of deaths from purges and executions of innocent Soviet citizens
is 640,000. Most of this was done by Nicolai Eshov, a German spy working
under direct orders of the German SS. When he was discovered, he tried to
hide his crimes. He was promptly tried and executed. Others with authority
high in the Soviet government were also found to be murdering innocent Soviet
citizens. They were also double dealers working for the Germans. Following
Lenin's death, many intellectuals doubted that the Soviet Union would
continue. They joined the party, acted like loyal party members, worked their
way up into positions of authority and worked as spies Germany. The
assassination of Sergei Kirov in 1934 was the first major provocation of the Bloc
of Rights and Trotskyites. There was sabotage including falsifying of grain
and cotton harvest reports, killing of livestock including horses,
destroying railroads, blowing up mines, and so on. In short, there was a fifth
column operating in Soviet Russia. The threat was real. And the man who was
charged with stopping the sabotage , Nicolai Eshov, was protecting the
spies, and conducting trials of innocent Soviet citizens, and lying to the
Central Committee of the CPSU the whole time. What do you do when people lie to
you? Do you take their testimony at face value? Can they be trusted? Are
they loyal comrades? Or are they lying and destroying the lives of innocent
people?
When Stalin acknowledged the atrocities, he did not call them a mistake.
He said that horrible crimes were committed that have nothing to do with
socialism, and those crimes were committed by Nicolai Eshov, a German spy.
When we speak of war crimes or crimes against humanity, we have to put the
blame where it belongs, not on the people who discovered the horrible crimes,
Stalin and Beria. There are many witnesses to Stalin's leadership of the
USSR. Firstly, there is the American ambassador to the USSR, Joseph E.
Davies, author of the book, Mission to Moscow. Then there is Anna Louise Strong,
who wrote, The Stalin Era, which is her account of her time in the USSR
under Stalin's leadership. There is also the book, Stalin, written by a
German biographer, Emil Ludwig. There is also The Red Archbishop, the Dean of
Canterbury, Hewlett Johnson and his book, The Soviet Power. There is plenty
to read on the subject of the soviet Union during WW II.
On the subject of war crimes and labor camps, it should be pointed that
the United States bombed Dresden and murdered hundreds of thousands of
German citizens, and later dropped not one but two atom bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki Japan, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese citizens.
These bombs were dropped on civilian targets where they would do the most
damage. The reason for these atrocities had nothing to do with winning the
war. The goal of the capitalism was to destroy the industrial capacity of
Germany and Japan so that the United States and United Kingdom would be
unchallenged superpowers in the world. The Soviet Union decided not to use
nuclear weapons and instead attacked the Japanese main land, liberated the
Sakhalin Islands, and kept the Japanese Army from valuable fuel to continue
the war. In short, the use of nuclear weapons was unnecessary.
Before and during the war, there was no “forced” collectivization of
Soviet agriculture. It was entirely voluntary. “it was found that the voluntary
principle of forming collective farms was being violated, and that in a
number of districts the peasants were being forced into the collective farms
under threat of being disspossed, disfranchised, and so on.” (History of
the CPSU, p.307, International Publishers, 1939 ed.)This was in direct
violation of the order of the Central Committee of the CPSU which was “against
any attempts whatsoever to force the collective-farm movement by 'decrees'
from above, which might involve the danger of the substitution of
mock-collectivization for real Socialist emulation in the organization of collective
farms.” (Resolutions of the C.P.S.U.[B] russ. ed., Part II, page 662.)
What there was was a discontinuation of Lenin's New Economic Policy, which
had become outdated. Stalin needed to ramp up agricultural output so that
there would not be food shortages during and after the war. There was
nothing forced about it. In fact having received a number of alarming signals of
distortions of the Party line that might jeopardize collectivization, on
March 2, 1930 Stalin's article “dizzy With Success,” was published. This
article was a warning to all who had been carried away by the success of
collectivization.
When whole peoples were relocated from their homelands, this was done
because their homelands were under attack. In fact, Soviet troop trucks were
sent to Poland to relocate Jewish people behind the Ural mountains so that
they would be safe. Once again, the threat was real.
With regard to Stalin's so-called labor camps, we should consider that
most of the people in the camps were deserters from the armed forces that
were captured.
This has been researched and verified by the writer Geoffrey Roberts in
his book, Stalin's Wars.
Secondly, we had labor camps of our own. Japanese-Americans were
relocated from the major cities on the west coast into internment or concentration
camps. These people were American citizens, many of whom served in the
244th army regiment in Europe while their families stayed behind. This was a
great violation of civil rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Before
we find fault and throw stones at Stalin, who has been dead for more than 50
years, who led the USSR in the great patriotic war and saved socialism, th
e legacy of Lenin, we should first look at our own country's “mistakes.”
The United States also had a “cult of personality.” His name was Franklin
D. Roosevelt, and while he did many good things, internment of
Japanese-Americans wasn't one of them.
Regarding the statement that “The state isn't simply the instrument of the
ruling class – a monolithic and tightly integrated class bloc and weapon.
While the capitalist class is dominant, the state is filled with with
internal contradictions and is a site of class and democratic struggles – not
just any site though, but a crucial and decisive site.” What you fail to
mention is that Gorbachev and his social-democratic friends used this idea to
destroy socialism and the USSR. The history of social-democracy of one of
anti-communism and anti-Leninism. The social-democrats do not want
socialism. They want to reform capitalism. The communists on the other hand,
have always been guided by the revolutionary teachings of Marxism-Leninism.
In the new conditions of the era of imperialism, imperialist wars and
proletarian revolutions, its leaders further developed the teachings of Marx and
Engels and raised them to a new level. That is what the CPUSA must do if
we are to call ourselves “communist.”
regarding the statement. “Bureaucratic collectivism and a command economy
that reduce people to cogs, social relations into things, and culture to a
dull gray will be resisted by a 21st century party of socialism” who is
suggesting that a command economy has to reduce people to cogs? The command
economy will be run by the workers themselves, not the party. That is what
socialism is! Why assume that the party will run everything? It certainly
does not in Brazil or Venezuela, or Cuba.
As for the statement that “Our socialism will embrace a new humanist ethos
and value system, that is what Marxism-Leninism does. Marxism-Leninism is
synonymous with humanism. This has nothing to do with whether or not there
is a command economy under socialism. Furthermore, a command style economy
with bureaucratic collectivism could be construed as trade unionism,
something that will be replaced by socialism in the 21st century. The dream that
“the builders of socialism should put into place a dense network of worker
and community organizations that are politically and financially empowered
to govern” assumes that everyone will participate. Unless incentives are
put in place, this will not work.
As for dropping the term democratic centralism, this cannot be done in a
communist party. This is how we function. Democratic Centralism “is” force
of argument. That is how unions decide questions of major importance such
as the decision to strike. The conscience of the majority, by unity of will.
Remember that the Bolsheviks we busy in 1917 too. Workers worked more than
the customary 8 hours a day. What makes us any different. Membership in
our party is voluntary. If members can't follow what is in our constitution,
they shouldn't be members. That is what distinguishes us from other
political parties. We are disciplined. We make a plan and we stick with it. We are
not like the social-democratic parties that spend all their time in
endless debates.
Regarding the internet, the party should not abandon ground organizing if
favor of the internet. It should use both. Our clubs depend on literature
to reach people in our communities. We can't neglect this work. The internet
that we have seen is very limited. There isn't much there to see. There
has to be more on those pages like the CPUSA website. There should be a
direct link to International Publishers on the home page. We shouldn't have to
surf through endless links to find it. International Publications is a
party entity and should be treated as such. Currently there is no members
section. There is no on-line store to purchase party supplies or to order
pamphlets in print. We should have position papers on things effecting the
working class: a paper on the foreclosure crisis, a paper on homelessness, a
paper on war and peace, a paper on the struggle to reform labor law, a paper on
immigration and citizenship. If these were on the web page,in PDF format,
our clubs could download them and use them in our communities. If we are
concentrating on the web so much, we need to use it to our advantage. Right
now it looks like something of a command style bureaucracy.
Regarding the statement that, “No party , including ours, is mistake free;
we make mistakes and we make them in the present as well as the past.
Politics is complex and fluid, and mistakes in theory, assessments and
practices are inevitable” it would be nice if the party of the first country of
socialism was afforded that same luxury! What gives us the right to judge
Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union in the great patriotic war? What right
do we have to distance ourselves from him? None. What was achieved until
1953, the year of Stalin's death could never be achieved by the CPUSA.
Never! The USSR saved the world from fascism and fought a war on two fronts. To
distance ourselves from Stalin is anti-communism at its worst. This is not
worthy of our party. Let us reunite ourselves with the legitimate
communist and workers parties of the world. It is ours to win in the 21st century.

Subscribe To

We need a vanguard Communist Party USA - one that rejects the Imperialist 2-party monopoly, stands on its own two feet and fights for the working class in honesty and integrity.We used to be that party, and we can be again. But first we must purge the cancer of revisionism and Browderism from our ranks, that would have us betray our fellow workers to the Imperialist ruling class for the chance to sit at the table with them. We must carve it out, and taking a cue from William Z Foster, save our party by expelling those that seek to poison it.